Description of problem: After some investigation it turns out that when using pac+http libproxy fails to download the PAC file if the file is being provided by the server as: Content-disposition: attachment; filename="proxy.pac" This is also a problem with current (2012-03-16) trunk but no upstream ticket filed (yet). Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 0.4.7
Is the attachment missing ? I think it would be wise to report the problem upstream directly.
> Is the attachment missing ? No, for example wget can retrieve the file ok. > I think it would be wise to report the problem upstream directly. We've discussed about this on #libvirt but this has not been yet reported to the upstream tracker. Thanks.
Is there an upstream report for this issue ?
(In reply to comment #3) > Is there an upstream report for this issue ? Not at the moment - my previous comment about IRC discussion was misleading, this was discussed on #libproxy (not #libvirt). Thanks.
Going back to this, I fail to understand why a proxy.pac should be provided with Content-disposition: attachment. This seems unappropriate to me in the first step. Should I close this bug as INVALID ?
(In reply to comment #5) > Going back to this, I fail to understand why a proxy.pac should be provided > with Content-disposition: attachment. This seems unappropriate to me in the > first step. Not sure what is the exact reason for this but nevertheless there are real-world servers which are configured in such a fashion and they seem to work all ok except for libproxy. > Should I close this bug as INVALID ? No, I think libproxy should be changed to cope with such setups, regardless how inappropriate they may seem. Thanks.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 17 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 17. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '17'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 17's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 17 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 17's end of life. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 17 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2013-07-30. Fedora 17 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
This is still affecting real-world setups, basically rendering libproxy useless in such environments. CC'ing David who has shown interest towards libproxy on Fedora lists. Thanks.
The best fix all round seems to be to use PacRunner (which is now in Fedora), and abandon *all* the libproxy modules apart from libproxy-pacrunner. We need to fix NetworkManager to prod the correct config into PacRunner, and also make PacRunner handle multiple networks in the same way that NM+dnsmasq do, directing queries within a certain domain or IP range to the appropriate configuration. The original "libproxy" should probably die, in all but its API.
(In reply to David Woodhouse from comment #10) > The original "libproxy" should probably die, in all but its API. In case someone close to libproxy takes that the wrong way: I mean that for *Fedora*. Having implementations across the board that provide that API is great, and the original libproxy is useful in many places. But we can do better in Fedora.
This message is a notice that Fedora 19 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 19. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '19'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 19 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Since libproxy is pretty much useless in certain environments without this fix, I'll bump the version number one more time.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 23 development cycle. Changing version to '23'. (As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 23 development cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 23 End Of Life. Thank you.) More information and reason for this action is here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora23
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 23 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 23. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '23'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 23 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 23 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2016-12-20. Fedora 23 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.